Why is that Covington student able to sue for $250 million when the right lies endlessly

[GIGObuster]

@Guinastasia

For starters, the kids weren’t the ones targetting Phillips, or the group of Native Americans – it was the Black Hebrew Israelites:

IMHO there is a reason why the Black Hebrew Israelites are not one of the main targets with the right wing media, the BHI is a very reactionary group and one of the few minority groups that support very conservative views regarding abortion. What I do think took place is something that the right wing is loath to pay attention to: how divisions among people of the right can come furiously when instead of concentrating on the march for life it gets shifted to the trolling what MAGA paraphernalia can get or give among people that were supposed to come together for the anti-abortion issue.

Of course, taking them to task would not do when the conservative narrative here is that this incident was all the fault of the liberal press.

[Lightnin]

@octopus

What would that lesson be? That wearing a hat is sufficient to be threatened with death by loony celebrities and loony nobodies in part due to libelous representation? I think the so-called right is already sufficiently aware of the deranged nature of the easily triggered rabid left.

Christine Ford would like a word.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Why is that Covington student able to sue for $250 million when the right lies endlessly?
IOKIARDI

This is the rule that helps explain a lot these days.

[Shodan]

Actually the rule seems to be “they were wearing MAGA hats so any accusation against them is true”.

Regard,
Shodan

[k9bfriender]

@Shodan

Actually the rule seems to be “they were wearing MAGA hats so any accusation against them is true”.

I can see how you would be stupid enough to think that, yeah. Please note that your stuff in quotes is a paraphrase that you made up in your own dysfunctional mind, not a quote of anything that anyone actually said.

I mean, given what is known of the incident, the article, and the conversations that we have had on this board, that I know you were aware of and participated in, you’d have to be an utter fucking moron to think that your assertion has any bearing to reality.

Which is why I think that you are sincere, and that you do think that your unsupported and unjustifiable assertion has some sort of bearing on reality. You really are just that fucking dumb.

[iiandyiiii]

IANAL, but if the defamation claim is saying that accurately reporting the words of a participant in the incident (i.e. Phillips) is defamation or libel, then that doesn’t seem like a legal claim that has any chance of succeeding. How could it be libel or defamation to accurately report an involved party’s statements?

[bobot]

These kids were sent to Washington by their parents and their school to protest abortion. They are tools. Now Trump is using them as well to do battle against his arch enemy “the media”. Tools, all.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Apparently some believe that reporting on the actions and words of people is wrong and worthy of punishment.

But only if they are the spawn of Republicans, sent with the specific purpose to protest and agitate.

Then a newspaper should not report on any negative consequences that come from their actions. For Republicans, freedom of speech means “freedom to say whatever I want, and be free from any consequences”

[mhendo]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Why is that Covington student able to sue for $250 million when the right lies endlessly?

What do you mean “able to sue”?

Just about anyone can file a lawsuit for just about anything, and that’s all that has happened so far. A law firm has, in consultation with the kid and his parents, drawn up a suit and paid to file it with the court. That’s it.

No-one with the power to decide anything has weighed in on the actual legal merits of the claims. No-one has won or lost anything. The filing of the suit said exactly zero about the relative merits of the Covington student’s actions or the lies of the right wing.

[Velocity]

@iiandyiiii

IANAL, but if the defamation claim is saying that accurately reporting the words of a participant in the incident (i.e. Phillips) is defamation or libel, then that doesn’t seem like a legal claim that has any chance of succeeding. How could it be libel or defamation to accurately report an involved party’s statements?

AIUI, the entire point of the defamation claim is that Sandmann was inaccurately portrayed in WashPost. That the media outlet claimed that he was harassing Phillips when video evidence shows that he didn’t and that it was Philliips approaching him, not the other way around.

[mhendo]

@iiandyiiii

IANAL, but if the defamation claim is saying that accurately reporting the words of a participant in the incident (i.e. Phillips) is defamation or libel, then that doesn’t seem like a legal claim that has any chance of succeeding. How could it be libel or defamation to accurately report an involved party’s statements?

That was my initial amateur reading of the case too.

Here’s a slightly different take from a lawyer on the Volokh Conspiracy blog:

What happened during the encounter is a story that developed over several days, with more video footage and testimony surfacing along the way, and I would be surprised if the court held the Washington Post to the standard of knowledge and investigation that Sandmann’s lawyers seem to expect. It is also not too clear who the “unbiased” witnesses (is there such a thing?) are that the Post should have interrogated before printing any story. To this day, the Internet debates what exactly happened on that day. It is doubtful that a newspaper will be held liable for essentially failing to take the plaintiff’s side in the controversy.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Mr_Downtown

Complaint can be read here for great amusement.

Ah. 99% of the complaint is for public consumption. The internal inconsistencies are pretty amusing, though.

The Post wrongfully targeted and bullied Nicholas because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red “Make America Great Again” souvenir cap on a school field trip to the January 18 March for Life in Washington, D.C.

Nicholas has zero history of political activism

He was at a fucking political rally!

Unlike the Post’s abuse of the profession of journalism, Plaintiffs do not bring this lawsuit to use the judicial system to further a political agenda.

The Post ignored basic journalist standards because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented, biased agenda against President Donald J. Trump (“the President”) by impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the President.

The Post negligently and recklessly published its False and Defamatory Accusations in derogation of accepted principles of journalistic ethics, including by wrongfully placing the anti-Trump, anti-Catholic, and pro-life agenda over the harm its False and Defamatory Accusations caused to Nicholas.

Not political. Riiiight.

@Velocity

AIUI, the entire point of the defamation claim is that Sandmann was inaccurately portrayed in WashPost. That the media outlet claimed that he was harassing Phillips when video evidence shows that he didn’t and that it was Philliips approaching him, not the other way around.

And yet the complaint only cites quotations from witnesses which the Post republished.

[octopus]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Apparently some believe that reporting on the actions and words of people is wrong and worthy of punishment.

But only if they are the spawn of Republicans, sent with the specific purpose to protest and agitate.

Then a newspaper should not report on any negative consequences that come from their actions. For Republicans, freedom of speech means “freedom to say whatever I want, and be free from any consequences”

Freedom of the press doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. Speech is consequenced with assault and bike locks? Dangerous press can be consequenced with bankruptcy.

[iiandyiiii]

@Velocity

AIUI, the entire point of the defamation claim is that Sandmann was inaccurately portrayed in WashPost. That the media outlet claimed that he was harassing Phillips when video evidence shows that he didn’t and that it was Philliips approaching him, not the other way around.

Do you have a cite for a WP article that makes assertions (not quotes from participants, but actual unquoted assertions) about who was harassing who, or who instigated the confrontation, that the filers claim was defamatory/libelous?

[iiandyiiii]

@octopus

Freedom of the press doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. Speech is consequenced with assault and bike locks? Dangerous press can be consequenced with bankruptcy.

Without some sort of cite or similar, how is this relevant to this thread? What did the WaPo do that violated the law or Sandmann’s rights?

[mhendo]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

He was at a fucking political rally!

It’s hilarious, right?

Not only was he at a political rally, but he and his schoolmates had traveled about 500 miles to be there. I consider myself a pretty politically active person, and I’ve been to a bunch of political activities during my life, but I’ve never, as a private citizen, traveled 500 miles specifically to attend one.

The whole complaint is less a lawsuit that it is an intervention in cultural politics.

[octopus]

@iiandyiiii

Without some sort of cite or similar, how is this relevant to this thread? What did the WaPo do that violated the law or Sandmann’s rights?

What did an adolescent wearing a hat do that justified death threats? You want consequences? Maybe a sympathetic court will deliver. We live in an age of social media fueled mob rule. Best learn how to exploit it.

[iiandyiiii]

@octopus

What did an adolescent wearing a hat do that justified death threats?

???

This thread is about a lawsuit against the WaPo. Not sure what you’re talking about. I’m unaware of anyone in this thread (or the WaPo, for that matter) making any attempt to justify death threats. Are you asserting that WaPo violated Sandmann’s rights? If so, what is your justification for this assertion?

[Folacin]

@iiandyiiii

Do you have a cite for a WP article that makes assertions (not quotes from participants, but actual unquoted assertions) about who was harassing who, or who instigated the confrontation, that the filers claim was defamatory/libelous?

I’m hopeful that the lawsuit goes nowhere, but one can certainly defame someone by only publishing quotes that make him look bad, and not any that show another side to an issue. Hell, Fox makes its money doing that on a regular basis.

[bobot]

I didn’t realize that the Washington Post issued death threats. No wonder they’re being sued. :smack: